International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 2014, 9, 899 http://dx.doi.org/10.1123/IJSPP.2014-0451 © 2014 Human Kinetics, Inc.
www.IJSPP-Journal.com EDITORIAL
Improving the Practice of Sports Science Research Sports science is a small niche field in the big world of scientific endeavor. As sports scientists, we live in the shadow of biomedical research, which addresses all the big-picture issues of health, wellbeing, physical activity, disease, medicine, and lifestyle behaviors. Biomedical research has a history of hundreds of years and is magnitudes larger than sports science in all the key metrics—public awareness; government priority; scale; number of researchers, organizations, and institutions (both government and nongovernment); funding; and publications. Consequently, to answer the often-posed question of where sports science research is heading in the next decade, we can look to biomedical research for many of the answers. A big driver of change in science, biomedical research and sport is technology. In sport we often think of technology as new equipment, devices or instruments, infrastructure, or communication systems that infiltrate our daily lives. Everyone is familiar with the opportunities that arise from using new equipment for testing athletes or research applications. Technology has also transformed the reporting of research in the publication domain, and in ways beyond simple online publication. Opportunities now exist for providing online supplementary information and critique of research claims via social media. What used to take 6 months for a letter to the editor to appear in response to a (print) published article is now a matter of hours online in the digital age. What then are the major challenges in sports physiology and performance research? Despite the opportunities, a number of problems are evident in sports science research and the quality of publications and outcomes delivered to sporting organizations, scientists, and researchers. Research that is flawed, poorly presented, or inconsequential is unlikely to have a positive impact. A recent commentary in neurosciences1 recommended several strategies for improving research, including performing a prior power calculation, disclosing methods and findings transparently, preregistering the study protocol and analysis plan, making raw data and supplementary results available, and working collaboratively to increase power and replicate findings. Established scientists will all identify with calls for more rigorous statistical approaches to sample-size estimation, randomization and treatment bias, blinding of treatments, data-handling techniques and processes, and practical/clinical significance. Funds for sports science research are limited, so issues of cost-effectiveness and wastage are important. The preregistration of protocols has been discussed previously among members of the IJSPP Editorial Board, and although the merits of this approach have been recognized, the challenge comes in convincing sufficient numbers of researchers, journals, institutions, and grant agencies to go this way. All of us have experienced
the shortcomings of the traditional peer-review process, but finding agreement and commitment to effective solutions remains elusive. The sports science community should look to the experience, conduct, and regulation of clinical trials as a means of improving sports science research. Suggested strategies to improve research, research outcomes, and scientific publications include recognition of the issues and commitment to continual improvement of research practices, more formalized training of postgraduate research students, more training and support for supervisors and mentors, and clearer pathways for collaborative interdisciplinary research within and between institutions. Some of these initiatives will require additional resources, but a lot can be achieved by recognition, coordination, and individual and collective commitment. Part of this discussion is the degree of coursework involved in higher research degrees. In Australia, for example, there are often no formalized coursework requirements in a PhD research program, and it is left to individual supervisors and students to identify needs and priorities in research training. The situation is probably different in North America and elsewhere, where coursework in research practice, experimental designs, statistical approaches, and ethics are more commonplace. Programs should also include training on manuscript preparation and review, and scientific communication via social media and other digital platforms. So how to proceed on these strategies? No one individual or small group can readily implement system-wide change so likeminded individuals (researchers, practitioners, industry leaders) will have to link in the first instance. A coordinated process that involves universities (the powerhouses of scientific research), funding agencies, and scientific publishers (the publishers themselves, but also journal editors and editorial boards) must follow. Committed individuals will make an effort to challenge standards and lead the way, but ultimately money talks so the involvement of institutions (eg, universities) and funding agencies (both government and nongovernment) is needed to bring about substantial improvements in sports science research. David Pyne Associate Editor, IJSPP
References 1. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013:14(5):365–376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475
899
www.IJSPP-Journal.com EDITORIAL
Improving the Practice of Sports Science Research Sports science is a small niche field in the big world of scientific endeavor. As sports scientists, we live in the shadow of biomedical research, which addresses all the big-picture issues of health, wellbeing, physical activity, disease, medicine, and lifestyle behaviors. Biomedical research has a history of hundreds of years and is magnitudes larger than sports science in all the key metrics—public awareness; government priority; scale; number of researchers, organizations, and institutions (both government and nongovernment); funding; and publications. Consequently, to answer the often-posed question of where sports science research is heading in the next decade, we can look to biomedical research for many of the answers. A big driver of change in science, biomedical research and sport is technology. In sport we often think of technology as new equipment, devices or instruments, infrastructure, or communication systems that infiltrate our daily lives. Everyone is familiar with the opportunities that arise from using new equipment for testing athletes or research applications. Technology has also transformed the reporting of research in the publication domain, and in ways beyond simple online publication. Opportunities now exist for providing online supplementary information and critique of research claims via social media. What used to take 6 months for a letter to the editor to appear in response to a (print) published article is now a matter of hours online in the digital age. What then are the major challenges in sports physiology and performance research? Despite the opportunities, a number of problems are evident in sports science research and the quality of publications and outcomes delivered to sporting organizations, scientists, and researchers. Research that is flawed, poorly presented, or inconsequential is unlikely to have a positive impact. A recent commentary in neurosciences1 recommended several strategies for improving research, including performing a prior power calculation, disclosing methods and findings transparently, preregistering the study protocol and analysis plan, making raw data and supplementary results available, and working collaboratively to increase power and replicate findings. Established scientists will all identify with calls for more rigorous statistical approaches to sample-size estimation, randomization and treatment bias, blinding of treatments, data-handling techniques and processes, and practical/clinical significance. Funds for sports science research are limited, so issues of cost-effectiveness and wastage are important. The preregistration of protocols has been discussed previously among members of the IJSPP Editorial Board, and although the merits of this approach have been recognized, the challenge comes in convincing sufficient numbers of researchers, journals, institutions, and grant agencies to go this way. All of us have experienced
the shortcomings of the traditional peer-review process, but finding agreement and commitment to effective solutions remains elusive. The sports science community should look to the experience, conduct, and regulation of clinical trials as a means of improving sports science research. Suggested strategies to improve research, research outcomes, and scientific publications include recognition of the issues and commitment to continual improvement of research practices, more formalized training of postgraduate research students, more training and support for supervisors and mentors, and clearer pathways for collaborative interdisciplinary research within and between institutions. Some of these initiatives will require additional resources, but a lot can be achieved by recognition, coordination, and individual and collective commitment. Part of this discussion is the degree of coursework involved in higher research degrees. In Australia, for example, there are often no formalized coursework requirements in a PhD research program, and it is left to individual supervisors and students to identify needs and priorities in research training. The situation is probably different in North America and elsewhere, where coursework in research practice, experimental designs, statistical approaches, and ethics are more commonplace. Programs should also include training on manuscript preparation and review, and scientific communication via social media and other digital platforms. So how to proceed on these strategies? No one individual or small group can readily implement system-wide change so likeminded individuals (researchers, practitioners, industry leaders) will have to link in the first instance. A coordinated process that involves universities (the powerhouses of scientific research), funding agencies, and scientific publishers (the publishers themselves, but also journal editors and editorial boards) must follow. Committed individuals will make an effort to challenge standards and lead the way, but ultimately money talks so the involvement of institutions (eg, universities) and funding agencies (both government and nongovernment) is needed to bring about substantial improvements in sports science research. David Pyne Associate Editor, IJSPP
References 1. Button KS, Ioannidis JP, Mokrysz C, Nosek BA, Flint J, Robinson ES, Munafò MR. Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2013:14(5):365–376. doi:10.1038/nrn3475
899
